President Barack Obama is preparing to ask Congress to ban vending machines of sugary snacks and drinks. It could raise another fight over federalism.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the administration will seek changes when Congress overhauls the Childhood Nutrition Act. It is a worthy goal to say the least. However, there is a serious constitutional question over the federal government’s increasing role in dictating specific policies in local school systems. Often Congress conditions federal funds on states complying with such guidelines. The use of such conditions has long raised federalism concerns, though the courts have largely upheld such conditions (as opposed to direct legislative bans).
Obviously, states should not have to be told by the federal government to rid our schools of such junk food. It is beyond me how educators would choose small vendor fees over student health. However, states’ rights advocates complain that Congress has found a way around federalism protections by collecting more taxes than the federal government requires in order to return the money to the states with such mandates or conditions. There may be good reasons to consider the federalization of the entire school system to guarantee uniformity and excellence. However, that is not the system that we have. Schools (with police powers) are the touchstone of federalism principles. This could prove an interesting fight over not the merits but the means of the federal plan.
For the full story, click here.
Under its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could directly ban vending machines with junk food, and not merely in schools. Doing so would be no different in principle from banning the sale of marijuana and other drugs.
Not the feds job to micromange vending machines in schools. I am perplexed that as a society we are so quick to comply to this type of control from a gov’t that is so wasteful & inept.
The linked to story states that the Obama admin. is looking to expand school lunch and breakfast programs. School lunches and breakfasts at my daughter’s school are terrible(fried and laden with salt and high fructose carn syrup).
this is a ridiculous idea. If local schools want to ban sugar then let the states do it or the local governments. The federal government has no business banning a legal food product even if it is bad for your health. Don’t drink soda or eat candy bars if you think they are unhealthy.
When is the Nanny State going to end? The tyranny of soft paternalism is tyranny nonetheless.
We must maintain state rights and federal constitutional rights. They feds have enough that they can’t handle already.
Lead paint.
Asbestos.
Thalidomide.
The Ford Pinto.
Opium.
Snake Oil.
They all used to be acceptable products too, Byron.
Controls on the market are not paternalism. They are laws to keep harm from the general public. Regulation is required because not all actors are good actors. The totally free market ideal you aspire to is a utopian fiction that requires all people not only act with rational self interest (in itself problematic) but with sufficient altruism to not harm others. This is contrary to human nature as demonstrated up to this point in history.
The question shouldn’t be is the market control valid, because by extension of the Commerce Clause, it is. The question should be is it necessary. If you look into the uses of high fructose corn syrup and the nutritional impact it has, there is an argument for limiting distribution as a health maintenance cost savings, or in the alternative, ban the use of HFCS in manufactured foods (a better decision). But the point is that there is an argument and it’s not based in paternalism, but economics. Unnecessary regulation is a burden I will not argue that point. But regulation is required or corporations will kill us all in their amoral quest for profits.
The key is balance.
And personally as far as HFCS goes?
How about Obama worrying about restoring the damn rule of law and all the other important stuff he was elected to do like curb corporatist influence in Washington instead of wasting our collective time with this low priority bullshit?
They’ve already banned chocolate-chip cookie dough flavored cigars. And now this. Where will it all end?
Buddha:
Sugar is not Thalidomide. At one point we thought eggs were bad as well as chocolate and coffee. Although HFCS does appear to be a bad actor. Education not legislation.
The proper venue for attacking these products is the court system. In my opinion that is where the regulation should occur.
Byron,
I have to disagree with you. Look at the statistics for obesity, early onset Type II Diabetes, and heart disease in recent years. Is it a co-incidence that the numbers are starting to soar in the generation X age group? It seems more that there is a corelation between my generation, ( really the first who were raised on sugar pops for breakfast, canned raviolli for lunch and take out, for dinner )and these horrible diseases!
Experts are now suggesting that the current generation can expect to see the same health consequences as early as their 20′s if they continue to eat high amounts of HFCS containing foods while sitting in front of the tube 6 hours a day ( at least my generation were still active ).
So you’re right in one respect, Thalidomide only caused misdevelopment of fetuses, while HFCS overload will eventually lead to death!
Byron,
This is an instance where we are in agreement that education is the best solution as a practical matter. And while were at comparison, eggs are not thalidomide and HFCS is not sugar. Eggs are natural and sugar can be/is minimally processed, but both thalidomide and HFCS are manufactured products not found in nature but for our technical intervention. So I’m not talking about arguments about what has been human food since we started being humans. I’m talking food like products. Technological artifacts. Regulation should be proportionate to societal risk exposure. Let’s take pasteurization. Milk as we drink it today is a manufactured product: fractionated from whole milk into skim, re-blended for fat content, homogenized and sterilized. Kids love the stuff. I like it in coffee from time to time. Would you rather its manufacture be unregulated because it impinges upon the freedom of the individual stockholders to make a profit or would you rather your kids be able to have milk and cookies and not have to worry if they’ll keel over from an additive designed to artificially boost volume like melamine. Chinese milk? Got some? Of course not.
For further example, those criminals responsible for CDS’s should have been so heavily regulated in the first place that they couldn’t damage the banking system in the first place. But an environment of 30 years of deregulation got us exactly the problems we deserve for not better safeguarding the interests of the public over the interests of the corporate.
In Japan all kinds of alcohol can be purchased from vending machines. Alcohol holds little forbidden allure for Japan’s teenagers. Japan’s adult alcoholism rate is 4%, compared to 7% in the United States where alcohol is strictly controlled.
Not only is this proposed vending machine policy flawed in its approach, it is further expansion of government’s role outside of its contract. It is simply not the role of government to control food access and choices of individuals. Would it be better if people made smarter choices? Perhaps it would. Or perhaps the highest purpose of government is to leave us free to live our own lives.
Why is HFCS so commonly used in today’s foods?
It is not lack of regulation. In fact, quite the opposite. Heavy government subsidies of corn production combined with government limits on sugar imports created the massive supply and demand for HFCS. These subsidies not only fundamentally altered the nature of our calories, they destroyed the family farm over decades in favor of agribusiness. In places like Iowa what few family farms remained were done in by government’s ethanol policy, architected by ADM itself.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/kingcorn/
Get rid of the vending machines all together. Sell it at a snack bar. Make it available to all. The catch is a lot of the company’s such as Coke and Pepsi have long term contracts with the school. This is how some fund the sports or other activities. How do you get around this?
I think I read that schools are entering into exclusive advertising with some suppliers”
Schools Sell Blood, Day Care, Dr. Pepper
Some Parents Are Tapping a Vein for Kids’ Schools: Is Anything Enough?
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90639&page=1
All I know is that “Bulls Eyes” got me through Law School and if they ban those, I might have to go for grief counseling!
rafflaw,
They do have a website called lawyerswithdepression.com maybe that will get you over the hurdle….
We can’t drink, can’t smoke. Can’t eat trans fat. Now we can’t eat sugar. At long last is nothing sacred…for fun’s sake?
Is prescription drugs to control mood all that’s acceptable?
The only vending machine in my high school was in the teacher’s lounge. If you wanted a snack you had to go to Jerry’s which was off campus, gawd forbid you had to eat the cafeteria’s slop.
So Smoker’s alley, which moved off campus with zero tolerance, becomes Mt Dew drinker’s alley?
What I put in my body is between me, my conscience and Dr Pepper.
Look it up HFCS is not sugar! FYI, Most schools in Ontario has had this ban is practice for several years now. In addition, kids who bring lunches from home cannot have any product containing nuts, and unhealthy snacks are discouraged. I can’t understand anyone defending the right of kids to eat junk food on a whim!
The reason for a ban is relatively simple….” out of sight out of mind “!
Buddha: “The question shouldn’t be is the market control valid, because by extension of the Commerce Clause, it is. The question should be is it necessary. If you look into the uses of high fructose corn syrup and the nutritional impact it has, there is an argument for limiting distribution as a health maintenance cost savings, or in the alternative, ban the use of HFCS in manufactured foods (a better decision). But the point is that there is an argument and it’s not based in paternalism, but economics. Unnecessary regulation is a burden I will not argue that point. But regulation is required or corporations will kill us all in their amoral quest for profits.”
Commerce clause and it’s not based in paternalism.
Hmm.
Bob,
How can one be a parent to a fiction? That’s like setting a place at the table for your invisible friend. Since when is the rule of law the equivalent of paternalism? The ability to grant corporate charters is based at its root in the Commerce Clause. And the ability to create is the ability to control . . . unless your name is Frankenstein. I have no issue with the government regulating commerce. Neither would Jefferson. Of all the Framers, he clearly understood the dangers of unregulated banks and corporations. Concerns of his that have historically proven justified.
No. I’m not your Huckleberry on this one, Doc Semantic.
I’m not going to buy that protecting and promoting the general welfare by regulating corporations and markets is paternalism. It’s a responsible governmental function (as in responsible to maintaining the social compact) and a Constitutional duty government owes the populace. The problem is that corporatist money and graft has replaced We the People as the primary motivation in Washington.
That’s a mistake on many levels. But the function of the rule of law isn’t paternalism. The rule of law is supposed to serve all. A shield and sometimes sword, but not a chain.
Buddha: How can one be a parent to a fiction?
Become a best selling author?
Buddha: That’s like setting a place at the table for your invisible friend. Since when is the rule of law the equivalent of paternalism? The ability to grant corporate charters is based at its root in the Commerce Clause.
Corporate charters are the product of state law.
Buddha: And the ability to create is the ability to control . . . unless your name is Frankenstein.
See above.
Buddha: I have no issue with the government regulating commerce. Neither would Jefferson. Of all the Framers, he clearly understood the dangers of unregulated banks and corporations. Concerns of his that have historically proven justified.
Like the temperance movement?
Buddha: No. I’m not your Huckleberry on this one, Doc Semantic.
I’m not going to buy that protecting and promoting the general welfare by regulating corporations and markets is paternalism.
But you know you’re not regulating commerce; you’re restricting individual choice–why else target a f’n vending machine?
Buddha: It’s a responsible governmental function (as in responsible to maintaining the social compact) and a Constitutional duty government owes the populace.
You do recall that the first drug laws were tax acts because the law makers found no police power in the constitution to imprison people for breaching a duty of virtue; don’t you? And if you don’t use a tax act, what’s left? That’s right, the commerce clause.
Buddha: The problem is that corporatist money and graft has replaced We the People as the primary motivation in Washington.
Sniff, sniff; wipe tear from eye. It’s still paternalism Buddha.
Buddha: That’s a mistake on many levels. But the function of the rule of law isn’t paternalism. The rule of law is supposed to serve all. A shield and sometimes sword, but not a chain.
So possession of a box of Goobers would be a misdemeanor; while possession of a case would indicate felonious intent to sell?
And while we’re on the topic of candy, you do know that the commerce clause is the one portion of the constitution that’s stretched more than taffy; right?
Off Topic but could be considered a snack.
Eva Longoria Parker misdirects Twitter fans to porn site
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2010/02/08/20100208eva-longoria.html
Now if I could only get her to …..
Buddha/Canadian:
I said HFCS was a bad actor. I found out about it through education and have tried to eliminate it from my diet.
If people quit buying food stuffs with HFCS in it, companies would quit producing HFCS, which is nothing more than a cheap sugar substitute.
Not having any idea about the following, I am willing to bet that some jackass Great Plains senator or congressman was lobbied by farmers and manufacturers to increase HFCS production through subsidies to compete with sugar from other countries.
Had they not done that we probably wouldn’t even know what HFCS is today. The problem is government intervention in the market. More of the same is not the Rx.
Puzzling:
I did not read your post before I posted.
It is actually funny how you can, with a few concepts, figure out how markets work and how they can be manipulated by government to the detriment of all.
Bob,
Buddha Is Laughing
1, February 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Byron,
This is an instance where we are in agreement that education is the best solution as a practical matter.
____
I said I was for education, not removing the machines.
And I think the ability to regulate was the entire point of pointing out corporations are a legal fiction and as such are capable subject to governmental oversight.
Now don’t go inserting premises into my arguments, Doc Semantic.
BIL–
One would never want to be accused of being anti-Semantic.
I am. And I don’t like the McAffee products either.
Bob,
However, in all fairness, it is an oft misused clause. To that fact I must stipulate. If it were not, we would not have the lovely fascist plutocracy you see before us today.
Puzzling,
Both gum and hats were flat out forbidden at my school (which is a step beyond the school not selling them), neither had a “forbidden allure.”
There are good arguments against this, that’s just not one of them.
Buddha: I said I was for education, not removing the machines.
“Just say no.” That one worked well with you; didn’t it Dr. Gonzo?
Buddha: And I think the ability to regulate was the entire point of pointing out corporations are a legal fiction and as such are capable subject to governmental oversight.
Don’t tell Byron; ‘it would appear that the strain would be more than he could bear.’
Buddha: Now don’t go inserting premises into my arguments, Doc Semantic.
Mutatis mutandis
That’s Latin darlin
for …
“Goodnight Austin Texas, wherever you are!”
“Goodnight Austin Texas, wherever you are!”
Isn’t that something Biden said while campaigning in TN?
Bob,
“Just say no.” That one worked well with you; didn’t it Dr. Gonzo?
______
Well . . . it is hard to argue with that one, Mr. Duke.
Obama administration’s banning of vending machines with sugary snacks will back up First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign, “compete, win, sweat!”
Elaine,
I rather take pride in being anti-semantic since I learned to speak from Groucho Marx. There was never a more anti-semantic Semitic than he. Then again, I live by the maxim that the perversity of the universe tends toward the maximum. And Art?
“Well, Art is Art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.”
Buddah,
Are you nipping at the DayQuil today>
Canadian Eh,
Dayquil, nitequil, swill. lol
AY , swill you will have to explain, no idea what that is
I am still on the X-Quil regimen, but that has nothing to do with my appreciation of Groucho. In that sense only, I am a dedicated Marxist.
Swill,
1) is a mixture of solid and liquid food scraps fed to pigs, or
2) any disgusting or distasteful liquid.
or
1 : wash, drench
2 : to drink great drafts of : guzzle
3 : to feed (as a pig) with swill
in this case Buddha……
Marxists, Buddhist they exist because they are.
I think I’d prefer to stick with the DayQuil……although swill would certainly turn me green
Nah, Buddha is a good person. A little green some days, but mostly very educational and informative.
I agree, I quite enjoy reading his posts…..seill however sounds really disguisting
swill that is
Can you imagine drinking real bock beer that had set thorough 2 seasons in the sun?
Or in my case a mix of Dr Pepper and Rum.
Truth be, both I have done or it seemed that the bock had set out in the sun.
Then I knelt before the toilet, asking mercy to extolling it.
It reminds me of drinking Genasee Cream Ale that I once had in up state NY.
I cannot imagine that at all actually. I don;t like beer at all, although Dr. Pepper & rum sounds like an interesting mix. Something that I shouldn;t admit on a thread where I have condemned the consumption of HFCS!!!
You smoothing talking devil, you.
“I’d kiss you if I didn’t have puke breath.” – Doug McKenzie in “Strange Brew”
ahhh, a fan of the great Canadian poet I see
Wasn’t that a SCTV skit? I am not sure I remember where I saw it. Did he have a brother?
Oh Bruther Puker.
Canadian Eh:
“Something that I shouldn;t admit on a thread where I have condemned the consumption of HFCS!!!”
they do have diet Dr. Pepper so you are ok.
But regulation is required or corporations will kill us all in their amoral quest for profits.
Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? But seriously, most corporations want us to live so we can keep buying their products. And a corporation can’t kill me with bad food. Only I can do that.
If abortion should be legal (as I believe it should) because the government doesn’t own a woman’s body, then all of us should be allowed to put whatever we want in our bodies.
Comparing CPB with corporations like Exxon and Halliburton is a facile comparison. The argument isn’t about what you put in your body by choice. The argument is about regulating business. And all it takes is one corporation to do something really stupid. “Well most of the criminals don’t want us dead! They just want us alive so they can steal from us.” There is not a lot of difference in your assertion and that statement.
Think a company with the “ethics” of an Exxon or an Enron or an AIG but they specialize in genetics. Instead of an oil spill, they create a super bug.
Oops.
Eat what you want before bed time. Morning may not come. Sleep tight with your beloved deregulation.
Byron,
” they do have diet Dr. Pepper so you are ok. “.
Thank-you for reminding me. I have a bit of an addiction to “Mug Diet Root Beer ” I’m having one right now, checked the label and there is no HFSC….wooo hooo!!!
AY,
” Wasn’t that a SCTV skit? I am not sure I remember where I saw it. Did he have a brother? ”
I think it did start as an SCTV skit, but later evolved to an entity all it’s own. Bob & Doeg McKenzie, the great Canadian Hoser’s. You should check it out. I’m not sure how funny they are to Americans but there was a time, many years ago, when every Canadian ( I could be exagerating ) knew all of their catch phrases. They would frequesntly emerge at parties that would follow the Saturday night hockey victory,after the
” boys ” with their hot ” hockey hair cuts “got into their
” cases of 24 ” ( Molson anything was the beer of choice.)
The military has access to students contact info, for recruiting purposes, via the Vitter amendment of no child left behind act. In return the the government should be required to do something beneficial, in reparation, by removing the literal poison of junk food from schools.
If the administration were smart, they would use this initiative to proceed to an actual health-promoting “reform” using the suggestion of Alexander Cockburn.
Round up the CEOs of the top 100 junk/fast food industry and publicly execute them.
AY
This is the film that “puke breath” line came from:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/
Seems to me like it should be the responsibility of the child’s parents to decide what their kids can or cant eat. If you don’t like what is being served at the school, then make lunch for your child to take to school.
I will have to admit to it, I have not seen it. Sounds good, knowing my humor and all…..
AY,
To be honest I’ve never even seen the movie either, they had a tv show back in the 80′s.
Canadian eh,
I missed a lot of TV in the 80′s through the mid 00′s. I did not realize that 2.5 men was a TV series.
2.5 Men is a great show
hi ppl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! good night ppl
how r u ppl? isnt the weather so horrible today?
I was lucky to find this jonathanturley.org web site. I’m so delighted by your way of thinking and writing. Have you thought about writing a book?